Probably about 0.5 seconds right there.

 

thats one nice little car!

 

My car has the Dunlops too. I've hit a couple corners hard and was quite impressed with the traction they offer.

 

We only tested an 09 for a short time but we concur with Edmunds. The 09 is slower accelerating but has a trifle more top speed. Thats the result of increased weight, no more torque, slightly higher hp, and lower numerical gear ratios, including the bigger tires.

 

Were you testing the MT as well?

 

would love to see a video of these tests you guys are doing. Inside or outside, doesn't matter.

thanks

 

Yes, we were. As a brand new vehicle we didn't run a 0-60 but only 30 to 70 mph comparison; far less stress on the engine that way. The 09 is 3 car lengths behind the manual 08 at 70. The 09 gave the signal to go.

 

Could care about 0-60 times. It's laughable. The car is designed for the complete opposite so why would people care? You want 0-60 times? Go buy a used WRX. 0-60 in less than 6 seconds and with a Cobb kit you can hit 4.3 seconds (I owned a wagon with that kit) The whole premise of the Fit is economy and yet a fun car to drive. If you bought this car for 0-60 times then you bought the wrong car! BTW: I could give a rats ass about 0-60 times, I want a FUN car, my old MG was slow as Hell and would fall apart but it was more fun than my M3 or my S4 Audi!

 

I agree, my Lotus was much more fun to drive than my Enzo or Gallardo. I enjoyed my Maybach for road trips and it's always hard to decide between the GT-R and 911 Turbo for short trips....

 

Hey, I hear you... I have a Stage 2 STI for such antics. However, once you have 0-60 >10 seconds, you risk being the slowest car in every situation... even if the other car is a Prius.

 

the point is the 09 is slower at accelerating, worse at braking, and not as good in the handling department. Yet is it advertised as "an improvement".

 

Hold on there. Acceleration maybe, but I have no doubt the rest of those stats are a tire change away from being as good or better than the 08.

 

I owned 2 MGB's and a M3 and if you think your MG's were as much fun as an M3 you need serious help.
PS the best MG ever made is a Miata. I might consider that a more fun car than my M3 but just barely.
PPS: my CRX HX (not my SiR) was the best economy fun car. 40+ mpg and the usual driving fun but it isn't the daily 'gofer' car that the Fit is. Long live Fit, just give us the good one, Honda)

 

That's a good article/comparison.

The fact that the slalom speed dropped (between the 07 and 09) by almost 2mph is amazing. That is a significant drop in dynamic handling. I'm glad I got an 07. It could be due to the tires, but also the 'softened' suspension.

 

Guys, I would reserve final judgement on the performance data that Edmund's collected in this initial test. I'm sure they got a slow one and those Bridgestone tires were touring tires as opposed to the high performance Dunlop all seasons on other cars like mine.

I'm willing to bet that other car mags like Car and Driver will get much better performance numbers, especially since Edmund's times are consistently slower than most mags.

 

I'd like to see a few more instrument-tested reviews before I start proclaiming the 09 as worse in every performance manner. One publication is not the whole truth.

 

The pissing match continues... based on one test... Ahh, the bitterness. I love it!

 

When you compare acceleration times between cars take 60-100 mph or some other increment; 0-anything is meaningless because so many uncontrollable attributes are involved. 60-100 or other flying increments virtually eliminate those uncontrolled and unintended characteristics.

 

"based on one test"

I would say the only bitter ones are those trying to make excuses for the 09's lackluster performance.

truth hurts sometimes....

 

You are the most ignorant poster on the internet, congratulations.